America's complex checkered history regarding relations with Iran is dominated by the kidnapping of 52 Americans four decades ago. Negative images of Iran are furthered by its recent nuclear ambitions, and fear-mongering by grandstanding politicians insisting that Iran is at root of Middle Eastern terrorism.
There are relevant parts of this story, overlooked by the media, and not understood by politicians that have important implications for Middle East stability.
Let's review some salient points regarding Iranian history.
In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry, dominated by British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain then imposed an embargo and blockade, halting oil exports and hitting Iran's economy. In a power struggle between the Shah and nationalist Mohammad Mossadeq, the Shah fled the country in 1953.
This was followed by a coup engineered by British and American intelligence services and return of the Shah. With authoritarian rule and alienation of the clergy, the Shah was forced into exile in 1979, ushering in the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, followed by the kidnapping of 52 American hostages. The hostages were released in 1980, after 444 days in captivity.
Iranian politics during the next decades are marked by internal struggles between reformist-minded liberals who prefer a more open society and world engagement, and religious conservatives who want to retain control. In Iran's hybrid democracy and theocracy, the president and parliament are not the ultimate rulers. Even when liberals control parliament, the Supreme Leader and conservative judiciary block significant progress.
President George Bush in 2002 included Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil." This injudicious remark angered, and united, Iran's reformers and religious conservatives with outrage at the U.S.
American-Iranian relations deteriorated further in 2002 with Russian assistance in constructing Iran's first nuclear reactor, over strong American objections. Enter the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2006 the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council regarding Iran's nuclear activities.
In 2007, the U.S. announced sweeping sanctions against Iran, the toughest since first imposing sanctions decades ago. In 2010, the U.N. Security Council imposed another round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, including tighter financial curbs and an expanded arms embargo. In 2012 the European Union boycott of Iranian oil exports was imposed.
By October of 2012 Iran's rial currency fell to a record low against the U.S. dollar, having lost 80 percent of its value.
The internal struggle between the liberal reformists and religious conservatives continued. In 2013, reformist-backed Hassan Rouhani won the presidential election. He promised economic reforms and greater world engagement. However, progress was impeded by religious conservatives who hold powerful positions, including that of Supreme Leader, unelected and appointed for life.
In the recent May 2017 Iranian election, Rouhani ran for re-election against a religious conservative. He was elected by a large majority, indicating the desire of Iranians for greater world participation.
These points barely scratch the surface of the complex web of Iran's relationship to America and the world. Do we expect our politicians to know the history and understand the complexities involving Iran and the Middle East? No, most of them couldn't find Iran on a blank map. But as the president and the Congress have the power to affect the course of history, it is crucial that they understand the implications of their votes regarding Iran, sanctions, and the "nuclear deal."
After years of negotiations, a framework deal was formulated during a series of meetings held in 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland. These involved permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France and China; plus Germany and the European Union.
Basically, the deal involves limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for lifting economic sanctions against Iran. That should be a win/win situation - Iran stops developing nuclear weapons, and Iran liberalizes its society and becomes part of the world economy.
But it's not that simple. President Trump and others, mainly but not exclusively, hard-line Republicans, believe it's "the worst deal ever." Trump promised to "rip it up." Trump's reaction to reformist Rhouhani's election is particularly troubling. He dismissed Iran's election as a sham propaganda show. Rather than reduce or eliminate economic sanctions, Trump and hardline Republicans want to stiffen sanctions instead. That is counterproductive to reducing Middle East tensions.
The tangled web of the Middle East is made more complex by the fact that both Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose the nuclear deal. The Saudis see Iran as a potential rival for power in the Middle East. If this were not complex enough, there is the rivalry of Islamic Sunnis and Shias, Saudi Arabia dominated by Sunnis and Iran by Shias.
Both the nuclear deal and Rouhani's re-election were welcomed by Iranians who are tired of isolation. The vast majority of Iranians was born long after the hostage crisis of the 1970s, has no recollection of it, and want a better life. Even though the power of the Iranian president is limited, it makes sense to punish reformists and discourage reform-minded Iranian politicians.
We don't expect Trump and individual congressmen to be experts on the Middle East. But we should expect them to distinguish between actions encouraging reform-minded Iranians as opposed to actions that give more credence to Iran's religious hardliners.
Trump, who wants to be known for his business savvy, should understand the powerful economic incentive of Iranian businessmen to be part of the world economy. He and his Republicans should be practical enough to realize that punishing reform-minded Iranians serves only to strengthen the religious hardliners. There is good reason why ordinary Iranians favor the nuclear deal and rejoiced at the election of the reform-minded Rouhani.
If this is too difficult for Trump to understand, Iran's impending $16.6 billion deal for 80 Boeing passenger jets should get his attention.
Trump should lead in welcoming the nuclear deal, easing Iranian sanctions, and at least give peace a chance.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
There are relevant parts of this story, overlooked by the media, and not understood by politicians that have important implications for Middle East stability.
Let's review some salient points regarding Iranian history.
In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry, dominated by British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain then imposed an embargo and blockade, halting oil exports and hitting Iran's economy. In a power struggle between the Shah and nationalist Mohammad Mossadeq, the Shah fled the country in 1953.
This was followed by a coup engineered by British and American intelligence services and return of the Shah. With authoritarian rule and alienation of the clergy, the Shah was forced into exile in 1979, ushering in the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, followed by the kidnapping of 52 American hostages. The hostages were released in 1980, after 444 days in captivity.
Iranian politics during the next decades are marked by internal struggles between reformist-minded liberals who prefer a more open society and world engagement, and religious conservatives who want to retain control. In Iran's hybrid democracy and theocracy, the president and parliament are not the ultimate rulers. Even when liberals control parliament, the Supreme Leader and conservative judiciary block significant progress.
President George Bush in 2002 included Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil." This injudicious remark angered, and united, Iran's reformers and religious conservatives with outrage at the U.S.
American-Iranian relations deteriorated further in 2002 with Russian assistance in constructing Iran's first nuclear reactor, over strong American objections. Enter the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2006 the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council regarding Iran's nuclear activities.
In 2007, the U.S. announced sweeping sanctions against Iran, the toughest since first imposing sanctions decades ago. In 2010, the U.N. Security Council imposed another round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, including tighter financial curbs and an expanded arms embargo. In 2012 the European Union boycott of Iranian oil exports was imposed.
By October of 2012 Iran's rial currency fell to a record low against the U.S. dollar, having lost 80 percent of its value.
The internal struggle between the liberal reformists and religious conservatives continued. In 2013, reformist-backed Hassan Rouhani won the presidential election. He promised economic reforms and greater world engagement. However, progress was impeded by religious conservatives who hold powerful positions, including that of Supreme Leader, unelected and appointed for life.
In the recent May 2017 Iranian election, Rouhani ran for re-election against a religious conservative. He was elected by a large majority, indicating the desire of Iranians for greater world participation.
These points barely scratch the surface of the complex web of Iran's relationship to America and the world. Do we expect our politicians to know the history and understand the complexities involving Iran and the Middle East? No, most of them couldn't find Iran on a blank map. But as the president and the Congress have the power to affect the course of history, it is crucial that they understand the implications of their votes regarding Iran, sanctions, and the "nuclear deal."
After years of negotiations, a framework deal was formulated during a series of meetings held in 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland. These involved permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France and China; plus Germany and the European Union.
Basically, the deal involves limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for lifting economic sanctions against Iran. That should be a win/win situation - Iran stops developing nuclear weapons, and Iran liberalizes its society and becomes part of the world economy.
But it's not that simple. President Trump and others, mainly but not exclusively, hard-line Republicans, believe it's "the worst deal ever." Trump promised to "rip it up." Trump's reaction to reformist Rhouhani's election is particularly troubling. He dismissed Iran's election as a sham propaganda show. Rather than reduce or eliminate economic sanctions, Trump and hardline Republicans want to stiffen sanctions instead. That is counterproductive to reducing Middle East tensions.
The tangled web of the Middle East is made more complex by the fact that both Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose the nuclear deal. The Saudis see Iran as a potential rival for power in the Middle East. If this were not complex enough, there is the rivalry of Islamic Sunnis and Shias, Saudi Arabia dominated by Sunnis and Iran by Shias.
Both the nuclear deal and Rouhani's re-election were welcomed by Iranians who are tired of isolation. The vast majority of Iranians was born long after the hostage crisis of the 1970s, has no recollection of it, and want a better life. Even though the power of the Iranian president is limited, it makes sense to punish reformists and discourage reform-minded Iranian politicians.
We don't expect Trump and individual congressmen to be experts on the Middle East. But we should expect them to distinguish between actions encouraging reform-minded Iranians as opposed to actions that give more credence to Iran's religious hardliners.
Trump, who wants to be known for his business savvy, should understand the powerful economic incentive of Iranian businessmen to be part of the world economy. He and his Republicans should be practical enough to realize that punishing reform-minded Iranians serves only to strengthen the religious hardliners. There is good reason why ordinary Iranians favor the nuclear deal and rejoiced at the election of the reform-minded Rouhani.
If this is too difficult for Trump to understand, Iran's impending $16.6 billion deal for 80 Boeing passenger jets should get his attention.
Trump should lead in welcoming the nuclear deal, easing Iranian sanctions, and at least give peace a chance.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
